BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//wp-events-plugin.com//7.2.3.1//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:615@ub.edu
DTSTART:20220223T130000Z
DTEND:20220223T150000Z
DTSTAMP:20250915T195303Z
URL:https://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/activities/explication-in-perspective-con
 victions-structure-and-shape/
SUMMARY:Explication in Perspective. Convictions\, Structure\, and Shape
DESCRIPTION:The method of explication aims at replacing a somewhat vague co
 ncept\, the explicandum\, by a less vague one\, the explicatum\, for a giv
 en purpose in a specific context. A proposed explicatum is measured along 
 four criteria of adequacy: similarity to the explicandum\, exactness\, fru
 itfulness\, and simplicity. Since the explicandum is vague\, however\, the
  parlance of right and wrong does not apply to an explicatum. At best\, on
 e may compare explicata with respect to their usefulness. In the theory of
  explication\, the debate centers around the structure and procedure of ex
 plication\, the criteria of adequacy and relations among them\, and the sc
 ope of the method. Although the debate contains many subtle and insightful
  contributions\, one can worry about certain tendencies. One such tendency
  is to uncritically accept the set of examples Carnap&lsquo\;s initial exp
 osition of the method gave. Another tendency is to privilege certain types
  of examples without argument. In each case\, such decisions have conseque
 nces for the final account of explication one accepts. The source of such 
 tendencies is that\, within the debate about explication\, the method is r
 arely\, if ever\, explicitly connected to broader metaphysical issues. Bac
 kground assumptions about such issues are present and effective\, but not 
 put at center-stage of the debate. As a consequence\, it is hard to evalua
 te whether the method is promising\, to what extent it is promising\, and 
 exactly for which kinds of problems it is promising.I put explication in p
 erspective\; I examine what kind of shape the method takes relative to dif
 ferent fundamental background assumptions\, or convictions. To keep the ex
 ercise manageable\, I focus only on two distinctive perspectives. Abstract
 ly put\, each perspective is marked by certain convictions centering on &l
 dquo\;structural&rdquo\; issues such as meaning determination\, vagueness\
 , and truth in relation to which Carnap&lsquo\;s initial examples and addi
 tional ones may or may not appear as clear and illuminating\, or even conv
 incing.These convictions address the very motivation for the method of exp
 lication and\, while in each perspective the set of good examples and\, re
 latedly\, the motivation for the whole endeavour vary\, in both of them th
 ere is room for explication although in different ways. The point of putti
 ng explication in perspective is to identify decisive points of departure 
 in the interpretation of the examples and to gain\, by that\, more systema
 tic control of these in the theorizing about explication.
CATEGORIES:Seminar
LOCATION:Online/Zoom
X-APPLE-STRUCTURED-LOCATION;VALUE=URI;X-ADDRESS=\, Spain;X-APPLE-RADIUS=100
 ;X-TITLE=Online/Zoom:geo:0,0
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR